2009 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ARIF MIAN through Special Attorney — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAFEEZ and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARIF MIAN through Special Attorney — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAFEEZ and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ARIF MIAN through Special Attorney — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAFEEZ and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Mehmood Ahmad Kasuri for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Request of prisoner to withdraw amount from National Savings Centre through his wife
Respondent who was in judicial lockup in a criminal case against him, filed application that as he was in judicial lockup and required money for marriage of his daughters; and that payment of amount be directed to be made from his account in National Savings Centre through is wife
Sessions Judge disposed of application of respondent, directing Incharge National Savings Centre concerned to approach Superintendent of District Jail and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law
Petitioner had contended that amount lying in National Savings Centre, which was sought to be taken out was the subject matter of fraud and cheating; and that order passed by the Sessions Judge being perfunctory in nature; was unwarranted and without jurisdiction
It was duty of investigator to have made all efforts for recovery of amount forming the subject matter of alleged fraud
If some amount was in account of respondent and he wanted to take the same out for purposes of marriage of his daughters through his wife, his request could not have been rejected
Sessions Judge passed order exercising all reasonable restraints
Order was innocuous
Petitioner who alleged fraud, had not filed any civil action for recovery of amount allegedly forming the subject matter of fraud
Respondent was in custodia legis and the Sessions Judge was custodian of his lawful rights
Order passed by the Sessions Judge, in circumstances, was within the mandate of his authority and could not be upset in the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.
Abdul Hafeez respondent No.1 had on 3-12-2008 filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Kasur on the ground that he had some money in the National Savings Centre (respondent No.2 in the application); that he urgently needed money for the marriage of his daughters; and that since he himself was in jail in criminal case F.I.R. No.489 of 2008 registered at Police Station Khudian, District Kasur dated 24-11-2008 under sections 419/420/468/471, P.P.C., the payment be directed to be made through his wife Mst. Khalida Parveen.
2. On the aforementioned application, the learned Sessions Judge passed the following orders:
"As the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mst. Khalida Parveen wife of the petitioner present in the Court want to withdraw this amount in order to meet with the expenses. Incharge National Savings Centre Railway Road, Kasur is directed to approach Superintendent District Jail, Kasur and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of."
3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that respondent No.1 was in jail in the aforementioned case F.I.R. No.489 of 2008 registered at Police Station Khudian, District Kasur, dated 24-11-2008 under sections 419/420/468/471, P.P.C.; that the amount lying in the National Savings Centre which was being sought to be taken out, was the subject-matter of fraud and cheating and that the learned Sessions Judge had passed the order which was perfunctory in nature. According to learned counsel, the order was unwarranted and without jurisdiction and the learned Sessions Judge should have held an inquiry by summoning the investigator of the aforementioned criminal case.
4. Respondent No.1 is admittedly in jail in the aforementioned criminal case F.I.R. No.489 of 2008. It was inter alia the duty of the investigator to have made all efforts for recovery of the amount forming the subject-matter of the alleged fraud. If some amount was in the account of respondent No.1 and he wanted to take the same out for the purposes of marriage of his daughters through his wife Mst. Khalida Parveen, his request could not have been rejected. The learned Sessions Judge, as I could see, passed an order exercising all reasonable restraints. He directed the Incharge National Savings Centre Railway Road to approach the Superintendent, District Jail, Kasur and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The order was innocuous. As far as the rights of the writ-petitioner/complainant of the aforesaid F.I.R. were concerned, he till today has not filed any civil action for recovery of the amount allegedly forming the subject-matter of fraud. Respondent No.3 being in custodia legis, the learned Sessions Judge of the District was custodian of his lawful rights. The order passed by him was, therefore, within the mandate of his authority and cannot be upset in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-477/L Petition dismissed.